Posts by Nigel Appleton

    He seems to be getting a modest budget to do what appears to be legitimate research. However, the concept of getting energy from molecular motion seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics so it's pretty improbable that it will perform as claimed and be a practical energy source.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


    Anyway, are you suggesting that high power production from LENR exists and is being repressed? It is hard to see how that would ever happen.

    Reluctant as I am to question one of the Grand Old Men of this forum, could you explain precisely your objection?


    Harvesting energy from vibrations induced by environmental heat seems to me to violate nothing. Heat pumps do it all the time; and it's not as if any great efficiency is being proposed.

    Just harvesting energy in a novel way.


    Still, I stand to be corrected.

    Signor Rossi, and any scientist or engineer working with him, is very well aware of what would have to be done unequivocally to demonstrate anomalous heat production.


    He and they have assiduously avoided doing any of those things. For years and years he and they have turned a deaf ear to all pleas for proper instrumentation used properly, for proper control/dummy runs, etc., etc., ad nauseam.


    This last circus was not a "demonstration". It was just an entertainment. Those who invest in Signor Rossi's blague (whether cash or simply belief) are doomed to perpetual disappointment.


    So it goes

    An investor who cannot or will not use Google deserves to lose his/her shirt

    There is a 4th alternative. Axil inhabits an impregnable silo of alternative reality, where copypasta from various fringe scientists becomes absolute truth and must be presented to the sheeple as absolute truth


    This is common amongst those who dislike whatever mainstream science might indicate on a given subject.


    Creationists are a prime example of this silo-dwelling

    The unmitigated evil that the enemies of LENR bring to the world requires a unmitigated negative and maximal reaction to that evil; and that evil is just beginning to be marshaled.

    Does being skeptical of the Rossi's claims make one "an enemy of LENR"? Am I evil?

    Well, if it was anyone else suggesting that, I might take exception.


    My old Gran used to say "the more florid the rhetoric, the less rational the speaker". Well, she would have done if she'd thought of it.

    The last time I went to Dublin I was forced to start drinking Guinness at 4 a.m. There was more Guinness at breakfast in Dublin. The memories of the next couple of days are somewhat hazy, but I do know at times I eschewed the Guinness for Bushmills. The Irish are generous hosts, but have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a nutritious diet.

    OK, so we have no idea what the actual pressure was in the system (I use the word loosely) at that point in the pipework. All speculation based on the figure of zero bar is fruitless.


    Also what species of scientist or engineer would not have queried that set of readings and at least swapped out the sensor for an alternative? It may seem trivial, but it gives an idea of the general sloppiness (or worse) of the test protocol and the people running it.


    Looking forward to the 24th. I shall just have returned from Dublin and will be full of the Good-natured Glow of Gallons of Guiness

    While we're discussing history, was it ever determined whether the invariant pressure readings of 0 bar reported during the "1 year test" were

    a) Zero bar gauge pressure

    b) Zero bar absolute pressure

    c) Readings given by a faulty or non-connected sensor

    d) Something else.

    Not that it matters; it's just something niggling at me.

    TIA for any answers

    Yes, stefan ; see this thread. The testing Alan Fletcher and IH Fanboy collaborated on has shown that in the case of the ProMinent pump they acquired, the rate seen in testing has to my knowledge reached a maximum rate of 42.3 L/hr. That's clearly somewhat short of the 70 L/hr or so that has been mentioned, but the testing is not yet done.

    I must say I stood back in wonder and confusion while all that was going on. To make such a meal of a relatively simple testing project....

    Well, he did. He even offered to pay for getting the license back, but they denied. IH did not want to get rid of Rossi. On the contrary they absolutely wanted to keep him in tight leash silenced by NDA for as long as possible.


    All this will be obvious to you when your tantrums ebb out.

    As I remember it, the Rossi (and/or his supporters) CLAIMED there was a cash offer to get the IP back; but IH denied having had any such offer. I don't recall any evidence either way, but I don't remember the Rossi claiming this in any sworn deposition.

    At the time, Rossi new about the E-Cat QX. Getting his IP and sales territory back was worth a lot more than 900 million. If he had won IH would have declared bankruptcy and had little money in the bank. He would never have got his 900 million + damages. I'm sure he grieved about the legal fees that he could not spend on R & D,

    The "IP" is completely worthless, if you mean that silly patent.

    AH, so you assume every peer reviewed, published paper is wrong. You are not far wrong according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8

    The AGW fanatics claim anyone questioning their IPCC dogma should be brought to trial.

    Science is currently in a very pathetic state. So climate scientists can't be scientists, right?

    Rubbish. Science always abounds with controversy; but science today is also remarkably productive.

    Well, it beats me. The Rossi claims to have a partner already, and he must have the experimental data to support his "five sigma" claim.


    So why the blue blazes does he need the dog'n'pony show? With all due respect to all concerned, can any attendees credibly be described as opinion leaders or influencers? Why does he not simply go full throttle for a Magnificence of automated production instead of faffing about?


    Looks like an ego trip to me

    The term "hero" comes from the ancient Greeks. For them, a hero was a mortal who had done something so far beyond the scope of human effort. The hero left an immortal memory behind him when he was no more. The hero was worshiped like the gods. He joined them in their pantheon. The hero is a great benefactor of humankind: Hercules, the monster killer; Asclepius, the first doctor; Dionysus, the creator of Greek fraternities. Heroes were always extraordinary; to be a hero was to expand people's sense of what was possible for a human being.


    Today, we still call heroes those whom we admire and wish to emulate. But still the concept retains that original link to possibility. We need heroes first and foremost because our heroes help define the limits of our aspirations. We largely define our ideals by the heroes we choose, and our ideals -- things like courage, honor, and accomplishment -- largely define us. Our heroes are symbols for us of all the qualities we would like to possess and all the ambitions we would like to satisfy. A person can choose Martin Luther King or Susan B. Anthony. Our heros still embrace human excellence. And because the ideals to which we aspire do so much to determine the ways in which we behave, we all have a vested interest in each person having heroes, and in the choice of heroes each of us makes.


    LENR needs a hero, someone to be emulated and act a template for excellence, accomplisment and caring. We need Rossi as our hero.

    Yeah, well. You shouldn't quote without attribution; and you missed out a bit, to wit " But people who had committed unthinkable crimes were also called heroes; Oedipus and Medea, for example, received divine worship after their deaths as well."

    I for one would like Paradigmnoia to piece together a model of the QuarkX on the basis of statements that Rossi has made and photos that have been released.


    Does anyone have a description of the specific experiment that has putatively reached 5 sigma, or a p-value of 3e-7? Going along with Rossi for the sake of argument, what would the sample size need to be?

    Pointless query, if I may say so. Signor Rossi does not use the term 5 sigma (or sigma 5) in its common sense of being a measure of unlikelihood of a given event being sheerly random. He has not and cannot have done the number of tests needed to justify using such a measure.

    Mind you, we have yet to be informed exactly what he means in his personal and idiosyncratic use of the term

    At some point, an inventor with IP but no money for development has to bite the bullet. Sell the IP? License it? Or just keep it secret for fear someone might steal it? The successful inventors I mentioned bit that bullet - they demonstrated technology without revealing essential IP; then licensed or sold said IP. In each case the inventors made money; in two cases a LOT of money. There was never any dispute over IP once agreements were signed


    One can certainly demonstrate one's technology convincingly without revealing IP. Of course, once a patent is filed, the IP is revealed. Goes with the territory, and in general patents are respected.


    Rossi's apparent position wrt IP is inexplicable to me. Well, not totally inexplicable if he has nothing in the first place. Which is what the balance of evidence points to at present.

    Writing as a reasonably successful business man in (biological) science based areas, and as an assessor of applications for science projects seeking grants of public money towards commercialisation, I disagree.

    The INTELLIGENT business route is to get your technology to a point where it can be CONVINCINGLY demonstrated to interested parties who have enough expertise in the field to ask intelligent questions; by which I mean you must be able to persuade people that you can back up your claims. So if you are claiming to have a device that can produce energy or power at a level significantly significantly greater than the level of any input, you should be able to satisfy queries as to how input and output are measured without fudging matters and you should be prepared to measure these openly and by methods generally agreed to be adequate.


    I speak from experience here - if you get defensive and angry when your methods or set-up are queried, you are waving a huge red flag to potential investors. I have turned down a number of technologies because I had basic technical queries that were unanswered and/or caused "inventor meltdown". The passage of time has shown that none of these - not one - was ever successful in moving to further development, let alone commercialisation.

    OTOH, I have backed a few that have been, indeed are, successful. In every case the inventors were very cooperative - indeed proactive - in answering questions and solving problems. And in every case NDAs and IP rights were respected


    Signor Rossi's regrettable history of not listening to people who suggest ways of making his work more convincing, and of throwing tantrums when he thinks his devices are likely to be too closely examined, are not going to predispose any potential partner in his favour.

    A DPS type demonstration will merely feed Rossi's ego, and leave the important questions unanswered.

    It thus seems an inescapable conclusion that Signor Rossi's planned QuarkX event is, in fact, planned as a dog and pony show.


    Not that there's anything illegal or immoral about that - Signor Rossi has the same rights that we all have to try to attract attention and/or investment to our inventions (provided he gives honest information) - but there's no harm in calling it what it is in common English usage


    Yes of course it makes total sense that people with a high level of scientific education would debate daily for hours on end what they think is bogus, pathological science, hokum, woowoo etc. After all, they don't have studies to perform, we all know that Science has reached its conclusion, because what cannot be proven theoretically doesn't exist, and theoretical knowledge is complete, because stuff that would question its completion, simply doesn't exist! just look at LENR : a whooping decades-long nothingburger with an extra serving of nothing. This is not circular reasoning: ask any serious member here (that is, not one of the kookoo LENR-believers), they have thousands upon thousands of posts explaining all this. Too bad Science is over, otherwise they would put their powerful minds to further human knowledge. Alas! it has reached its end. And they're doing us all a service, spending all this time telling us that there's nothing there, otherwise people might be fooled into thinking there's something about LENR. That would be catastrophic!
    Flat Earth fora and blogs are overcrowded with high level physicists spending hours daily telling that the earth isn't flat, you are so right about that. Therefore, it is very logical that LENR-forum is also populated with high-level scientific types spending hours every day telling either that Rossi is a scammer who successfully mass-hypnotized investors and scientists over the course of 10 years, or that "LENR isn't real lol", by random Pathoskeptic Joe / Likes Received: 3240 / Posts: 2853


    Sorry - do you have a point to make?

    Well that's really heartening, it only took you 1690 or so posts to lose interest in Rossi. Yet, you're still posting about him :/

    The social engineering going on on this forum is hilarious. The most verbose of the posters repeat ad nauseam that Rossi is a scammer and that there's nothing to see so move along, and they all have 1k+ posts repeating exactly that, with the bonus option of "LENR is a giant nothingburger, it's not even worth spending time studying it".
    But it's worth spending hours daily on this very forum (and others I believe), trying to persuade others of this:?: 

    Oh come on! The internet is stuffed with fora and blogs hosting small groups of people holding wildly different views and arguing ENDLESSLY about them. Not with any hope of suasion or resolution; just because they are the sort of people who like to argue. No-one here expects their opponents to change their minds - they are here for the craic. "Worth the time " has nothing to do with it.

    I'm with maryyugo here. If the demo does in fact happen, there will be no unequivocal evidence of energy out being greater than energy in.


    Favourite for fudging is measurement of energy input. Second favourite is crappy calorimetry/temperature measurement.